Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2/Dell XPS M170


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge/redirect to Dell XPS. Keilana | Parlez ici 01:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2/Dell XPS M170

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable commercial product. This article is up for merge, but the target article is already a wreck because of original research problems. This article has no references, and has been flagged for merger (for about three months) and for references (for about 10 months) with no substantive improvement. Since unreferenced material must be aggressively removed, the best solution seems to be to delete the article. Mikeblas (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Note that this article was previously nominated for deletion. I had expected the aft templates to pick this up, but they're quite broken when used on articles with strokes in their names. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;Don't you mean that unreferenced material must be aggressively referenced? Have you actually tried referencing this page? There appears to be plenty of hits, including many favorable reviews. I think it's notable.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, I mean that unreferenced information needs to be removed. This is because zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you are using this quote out of context and have told you so before. Quite apart from the fact that policy and practice on Wikipedia are not decided by quoting Jimbo posts to mailing lists, Jimbo says "random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information" - which does not mean every single thing on Wikipedia that lacks a footnote. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The context I'm taking that quote from is Verifiability itself. I've made no claims about any group of articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why you're trying to broaden this AfD into the analysis of "every single thing on Wikipedia that lacks a footnote". I thought it was perfectly clear, but let me state it explicitly for you: I'm making a claim about this specific article: it very clearly contains random, speculative information. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I've not been involved in any of the discussions with this article, but I firmly believe it needs to be merged and not deleted. This is a notable product from a notable company. The improvements will come. Perhaps it needs to be re-tagged. I'll keep my eye on it. Carter | Talk to me 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Merge and Wiki into Dell XPS. Although Dell XPS as you say is a mess, it still is the most appropriate location for this article to be in.  Instead of deleting it, be WP:BOLD and just do the merger and wikify...  --Pmedema (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Be bold and go merge it. EJF (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions. Why?  Has Wikipedia changes its policy on publising original research? Or its policy against advertising? Or is it now a Dell sales catalog? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only original research if it cannot be referenced by reliable sources - all that's needed in a merged page with Dell XPS is 2 or 3 references and any notable sourcable information noted. I would hardly describe the article as a piece of advertising — you're seriously underestimating Dell's advertising team. The only thing I can say is WP:SOFIXIT. You are more than welcome to do a merge and redirect. If you don't want to, no doubt this will be kept. EJF (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction. I'm afraid lots of editors believe whe you're saying here, and that's bad for the encyclopedia. What you've gotten completely wrong is the assertion that if an article is OR only if it cannot be given reliable sources. An article with reliable sources might also be evidence of synthesis, which is a very important exception to your "only" claim. The article needs more than two or three notable assertions; it needs to have its extrordinary claims backed-up by extrodinary sources. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I'm game for a merge.I'm fairly certain that most of the information in this article can find a reference.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. I'm deeply disturbed that something like this is being considered for deletion due to 'unreferenced material' as you put it. It's a commercial product well-known in gaming circles, and is extremely notable.  It's specifications and statistics are easily researched.  The google test gives 440,000 for "XPS M170".  Out of those, pcMag, zdnet, cnet  and engadget  all give reference to most of the fairly obvious material presented in the article.  It's not original research by any leap.  Celarnor (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. While some of this commercial product's specifications are easily referenced, the article contains far more than just a list of specifications. This remaining material is not referenced. It only takes a quick glance at the article to observe that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I see no reason why this model is notable enough for it's own article. It's just another Dell PC model.-- AbJ32 (Drop me a line) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.